The Stranger Endorses Bernie Sanders for President

For the March 10, 2020, primary election.



Has everyone forgotten the Bernie Bros from 2016? Unless Bernie Sanders indeed ends up getting the DNC nomination, I'm sticking with Senator Elizabeth Warren. The White House is LONG overdue for its first woman president, and Warren is the best candidate the Democrats have to soundly beat Donald Jackass Trump.


Poor Mr Savage may need a new joke. But, considering that the best-suited woman for this election was never running, and that Mr S would have preferred a pusher of conversion therapy to any of the men running, I shan't feel too sorry for him.


I'm far from a conspiracy wacko but the media has it in for Bernie. In the debate and post-shows he constantly drilled down on major issues; the media just barraged him with click-baity Republican bumper stickers in return. Way more than the other candidates. It's painfully clear that Bernie's true and primary focus is on making life better for the have-nots in America, and though the media pays lip service, they don't hear the comfortable hedging dog whistles from Bernie like they do from the other candidates. They are scared of him.

I don't know if Bernie can beat Trump. And if he does it will likely be a shit show of recession and government gridlock amounting to nothing but whiny outraged recriminations from his core about what coulda shoulda been if not for ... (which is good enough for half of them - stay tuned to SLOG). But goddamn the establishment needs to step the fuck out of the way and let the guy take his best crack at it. The people are speaking - Go Bernard Go!


Boo. Couldn't disagree more.


The headline may as well say The Stranger Endorses Trump's Reelection


If Bernie doesn't get the nomination, his "bros" will torpedo the actual Democrat candidate, and if he does get the nomination, he won't be elected because sane people won't vote for him.

Welcome to four more years of Trump. Which sucks.


If Bernie gets the nod, the General will be 1972 redux. Trump will win the Electoral AND the popular vote.

You guys really got to put the weed down and get out a little bit. Much of America doesn't live in our urban liberal bubble. They're not going to go for open borders, free medical care for illegals, reparations for blacks, free college for everyone (do we really need more Sports Marketing majors?).

Bernie can fill halls, but so can Trump (whether you like it or not).

Still, if he's the nominee, I'll vote for him.

Vote blue no matter who!


"And if we want to end this era of polarization, we need to win this race and then work to implement major changes that improve people's daily lives so deeply that Republicans would sooner die than try to cut them out."

LOL what?? Way to undermine your entire article in one sentence. The best way to end polarization would be to run a even-tempered candidate who doesn't give in to outrage culture. Someone like Tulsi Gabbard. She is the ONLY Dem candidate who would steal actually votes from Trump and not drive conservatives further to the right. Plus, she is a woman and a minority. It would make history.




For the record, far more Hillary supporters voted McCain than Bernie supporters voted Trump.

Anyway this was a mostly sensible endorsement. Bernie looks unelectable on paper but he gets through to people, has a simple message, and he keeps winning. Unless his support suddenly collapses the only way to get a different candidate will be some absolute ratfucking at the convention, and Trump wants that far more than he wants Bernie as an opponent.


"These Chapo Trap House–listening idiots might be holding the race hostage—but the stakes are so high that we're willing to pay the ransom if that's what it takes to save the country from four more years of Trump."

Sounds like you guys negotiate with terrorists. Grow a goddamn spine.


There is zero evidence in Sen. Sanders' Senate record to indicate that he can accomplish any ot the ideas he is promising. Zero. All talk, all promises; no record, no evidence.


Can someone propose a measurement to compare the number of people who would vote for Sanders or Nobody vs those who would vote for Any Democrat But Sanders? There is similar evidence for both populations: i.e. people saying stuff on the internet. But I've never seen it quantified.

I think Sanders is as likely to beat Trump as anybody else on the basis of "who the hell knows what the future holds". My gripe with Sanders is that I don't like the way he's held up as a Man on Horseback in certain quarters - an unseemly thing for people on the left to be doing, in my opinion. But that personal peeve has no bearing at all on the politics of the situation.


I think this endorsement is one of the rare cases of people acknowledging the downside of some of his most in-the-bubble supporters (I won't call them bros since over half are women) in a realistic way. Yes these people exist. They are also a tiny part of his coalition and their influence isn't that big of a deal in the real world. Also that 12% is better than what usually happens with supporters of a candidate in the primary vs general- famously more Bernie people voted Hillary than did Hillary people voting Obama in 08. (Which means, more than 12% of Hillary voters went for McCain). And while Bernie-Trump voters were a thing, they added up to less than 2% of the overall electorate. Finally they are not the Bernie 'bros' but rather independents/republicans who would've gone Dem for Bernie but not for Clinton. The 'bros' that did not come out for Hillary either stayed home or voted third party. I don't know if that 2% will turn out for Bernie or Trump this time, but there's no chance in hell they'll turn out for Warren or Pete so Bernie's the best bet there. The 'bros' will definitely turn out for Bernie. And then, at least based on what we saw in the first three contests, some new people turn out for Bernie and the youth turn out at 08 numbers. The question is, will this coalition (independents, lefty bros, the disaffected, the young, progressives) be enough added to the blue-no-matter-who Dems to compensate for the conservatives that we lose? I hope so. But as this article explains, there really isn't a better option.

Also I think this article was really sensible about what an actual Bernie admin will look like and how it might affect the world- very nice to see foreign policy differences between Bernie and literally every other liberal highlighted so well as it's so important. I'd add to it that Bernie is also the only person that wants to shut down ICE. He and Warren both have good climate change plans, but hers does not take into account the role of imperialism and weapons dealers who she wants to work with and just make more efficient.


I like other Democratic Party candidates better, but Bernie's policies and positions are pretty good.

"If you want a piece, you gotta ask for the whole pie. And Sanders is fucking shouting for that damn pie with whipped cream and boozy cherries on top."

I think that gets to my biggest problem and fear with him: I am worried we'll miss out on a lot of pieces, because Bernie will be too insistent on more, and worse, I think his support will evaporate as he fails to get things by not compromising and as he let's them down by doing both.

Honestly, I think the end result of a Saunders presidency will be a huge swath of idealists sitting out of politics for a long time to come.


Agree with @11 and @3 above.

I don't understand Venn at @2- not that I follow Dan super closely but he's been on the Warren/Clinton end of things but not anti-Bernie, more like Bernie is a second choice so I don't know what that means about conversion therapy. Surely Warren didn't support that? Or do you mean Hillary? I don't remember her supporting conversion therapy- terrible as she is for other reasons? To me, it just seems like Dan's preferences are in line with most urban progressives his age? Though this is conjecture since he hasn't made a post in a long time and I don't follow his podcast and I don't tweet so maybe Im wrong.

@6 Millennials are in their 30s. They make up half the workforce despite being a smaller generational cohort and being the generation that is currently raising most the country's children. As Boomers age and die, it's millennials paying their bills. Get another talking point.

@8 Oddly, the identities of who is more liberal, less liberal etc has shifted- these words mean different things now. Urban white liberals are more likely to support Pete or Warren than anyone else does. Bernie and Biden have the diverse 'out of the bubble' bases of support. To a lot of people out of the bubble, "very liberal" means you care a lot about cancel culture or MeToo or keeping up with all the pronouns for different genders. While Bernie is good on these issues too, they are not his focus. People who are not very online do not see him as "very liberal". They see him as focusing on jobs and healthcare and trade and endless war and immigration issues- in short he's appealing to people's material conditions. The real shift with Bernie supporters (and this part IS new) is between generations, not between urban/rural or liberal/centrist. Among the wider left (ranging from moderates to liberals to lefties, basically anyone who votes Dem): If you are under 40 of any race or income or region, you are most likely to support Bernie. If you are over 60, you are more likely to support anyone but Bernie. If you are between 40-60 (my generation) you are the wild card. And it's also among class. This is actually a very interesting shift that has the potential to unite a broad coalition for the first time in decades, though it's also risky because if he loses, it's going to crash down hard and probably destroy progressive/left politics for the foreseeable future.


"But there is only one candidate who can electrify the electorate enough to beat Donald Trump..."

Really? While he may well generate the most enthusiasm, you should have at checked this statement against fivethirtyeight. All the current main Dems lead Trump in the large majority of head-to-head voter polls posted there. The most recent poll (just posted today) of a Sanders:Trump match-up has Trump up by +7 points.


We like Bernie.
And if he is good enough for Putin he is good enough for us.


@16 "I think the end result of a Saunders presidency will be a huge swath of idealists sitting out of politics for a long time to come."

Since that's been the standard for decades, I don't see it as a great risk. Sanders has brought those people into electoral politics- and more importantly, into organizing on the ground on other issues, using the campaign as a vehicle. The worst case scenario is that when he does a drone strike or something, those people will drop out. Some might become more radicalized. We don't know. But if they just drop out of politics, well then we are back to where we were- not like we go backwards.

As for him refusing to compromise, he's waaaayyyy more moderate than he gets credit for and there have been plenty of congress people on both sides who are on the record talking about how well he works with others on legislation, even taking no authorship credit for any of it when it's not strategic. Compromise in the past has meant serving industry and private interests. I don't think he'll do that and I do expect that to cause some stonewalling, but when it comes down to political compromise, he has a long history of that. Should be interesting either way.

Of course this is all castles in the air. He's probably coming in second in SC, and he's yet to win the nom. Things could still change!


Surprised but not surprised by SECB endorsement.

Bernie has already lost Florida, one of the critical swing-states with a lot of electoral college votes, by praising Castro (however faintly).

I like a lot of his policies and ideas. I just don't see how he has any chance of beating Trump. And it frightens me to see all of you pinning your hopes on a crazy-haired grandpa who's pushing 80 and has already had a heart attack. If he wins the primary, I'll vote for him in November, but he will definitely not get my vote on March 10th.


@6 The people getting something for nothing in America today are the children of billionaires.

The Walton heirs, without ever doing an honest day's work in their lives, are wealthier than the 40% of America doing our country's dullest necessary jobs, combined.

Come on back when you've got plan to solve that particular "golden ticket now daddy" problem, you steaming asshole.


That last paragraph in @11 is pragmatic gold.


Also Emma Liz writes a lot but always with considered substance


“ Free Insurance, Free Education, ...its all free. The solution is to simply tax the hell out of somebody else”

Then it’s not free is it?

And no. The solution, if you bothered to read the proposals, which you haven’t, is to tax everyone more fairly (and to add taxes to stock trades). Like we USED to do. Other than his college proposals, there is nothing revolutionary about these proposals that the entire civilized world doesn’t already do.

And dude. Millennials are almost forty fucking years old - the youngest are 25 years old - and as a cohort make up more of the recent millionaire and billionaire class than any other generation. Mark Zuckerberg, Lebron James, Ivanka Trump, and Jared Kushner are millennials for fuck sake.

AND millennials access entitlements at less than half the rates of boomers or X’ers. So quit your bullshit.

Not that those stupid generational distinctions make any sense in the first place.

Christ. Is there no divisiveness or bigotry you fucking imbeciles don’t instantly embrace? How do you even live in this world with this sad reactionary paranoia and dissonance.


Bernie probably can’t win, and his political malpractice in last night’s debate illustrates why.


If Sanders goes into the convention with 40%+ of the delegates, he wins the nomination. That looks like a good bet right now. And there would be a narrow path to victory in the general election. He only needs Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan to win and he knows that. It could happen.

It is more likely that he scares the country into four more years of Trump and we lose the House and fail to regain the Senate.


@26 @27, etc-- It's kind of charming how you guys have completely forgotten the consensus of the media, the GOP establishment, and pretty much everyone else on Trump in the spring of 2016.


@29 How will he increase the powers of politicians?

The government is not the same thing as politicians, you know? Like, transportation and sewage departments, government owned/run, have a lot of power in the sense that our entire infrastructure is dependent on them. Likewise, public schools- considering they prepare people for the basics of employment and also indoctrination. M4A would be like that- they would have some effect on people's daily lives and on our society in general. But politicians themselves would not be any more powerful because of public health care than they are because of public school. It's not Congress or the President that will run health care. And anyway, health care providers ALREADY have a huge amount of power over individual's lives only now there is no public oversight at all. They make decisions based entirely on profit. If it's not profitable to do something (like create a new class of antibiotics for example or provide affordable insulin to people) then they don't do it. And there's nothing you can do about it. At least if it were government run, you could vote in/out the people who influence their leadership and set their public health agendas. Is that what scares you?

Anyway, I just want to point out that the government, as currently configured, has ICE which runs its own police and prison and court system independent of the regular criminal justice system so with no oversight at all, no public defenders, nothing. And the executive branch can currently murder people abroad with no oversight, even if they are Americans- and unilaterally & without Congressional approval- engage in warfare in any country that they decide (again without oversight) fits under the umbrella of "terrorism". Bernie is campaigning to end both ICE and the AUMF so on those points alone, he would DRAMATICALLY reduce the power of politicians, especially the executive branch.


That 7 point Trump lead is from Rasmussen. Not to be taken seriously.

That said, it'll be interesting to see what the other pollers say as people become more familiar with Sanders. This could, at a minimum, signal that people are put off by what they're learning.

Keep in mind most people probably don't even know the guy isn't a democrat.


Your right, us Chapo listening idiots, along with our pal Bernie, have a gun pointed at the heart of the Democratic Party - and the message is this: Either your coming with us to the left, and returning to our progressive, populist New Deal roots OR: we will destroy you and y’all can enjoy being a rump party and go the way of the Whigs.


@31 Well said, but it sounds like it's been a while since you asked your local right-wing nutjob how he feels about America's public school system.




@30 Oh no. We haven't forgotten 2016. And Bernie could win. It's just more likely that Trump wins the popular vote by roughly 3 million and sweeps the Dems out of office in the down ballot bloodbath.


You do a wonderful job of capturing exactly why leftists are done with liberals and their nonsense in your little snark about "spin class". The sneering classism you embody is exactly why none of the liberal candidates has a chance of capturing the Sanders coalition.


The whole "12% of Bernie primary voters switched to Trump in the general" doesn't mean what you think it means. 25% (!) of 2008 Clinton primary voters switched to McCain in the general.


@31 Absolutely. But people bitching about a system (which I'm sure they'll do with health care which will have its own problems no matter what) isn't the same as thinking it gives politicians power.

@32 I'm a little worried about it. The Bernie campaign is expecting to come in a close second or else barely win, so any outcome that has Bernie / Biden in close 1st/2nd increases my confidence. But if Steyer does rise up to 2nd and knock Bernie to a 3rd place, I think it's a serious set back to his campaign that might make us rethink our confidence as him as a frontrunner going into Super Tues. So far, the Bernie campaign has been nearly 100% accurate about all its predictions. I hope that holds. IN any case, Pete and Warren and Klobuchar should be effectively knocked out Saturday.

@oldwhite guy @36- yeah this is what I've been saying too except I'm slightly more optimistic than you are. I'm not convinced that anyone can defeat Trump. I think it could happen, and I think that of the current lot, Bernie has by far the best chance followed by Biden. But it's very hard to beat an incumbent president when there is no crisis and the economy is not doing worse (for most people it's about the same as it was 4 years ago which means most people are not doing well but Trump has not made it worse).

Oddly, I think Klobuchar has the next best chance, after Biden. This is just my gut feeling based on the fact that what voters seem to be the most sick of (more so than any policy) is politicians who talk as if they are worried about offending people or as if they are thinking how their words sound on cable news or if they are playing gotcha. This is why Trump is popular with his base. It's why people like Bernie and Biden (even if they aren't their first choice) while most people dislike Pete and Warren. And though on a policy level, I support Warren more than Klobuchar, I think Klobuchar is honest while Warren is a lying fraud. Which is a shame because I liked her back before I knew much about her.

@33, 37 RE: Chapo podcast- it is popular with young people the way Jon Stewart once was in the early Bush years. It's just an average political comedy show that really resonates with a certain cohort of young people because it accurately calls out the bullshit in mainstream media narratives and establishment politics. As an older woman, I've listened to a half dozen shows or so that my nephew shared with me and I found them amusing enough but not very interesting. I think if you're new to left politics or if you grew up feeling that you were being scolded by hypocrites, it's probably very satisfying but I'm obviously not their target audience. I seriously doubt most people have ever heard of them, certainly not average voters. What's ironic is that they will be next generation's mainstream media.The only people who seem to actually care or get annoyed by them are the ones whose careers they are going to replace.


"In 2016, too many people felt like the government wasn't meaningfully addressing their problems,...That got us Donald Trump,"

No. That most certainly is NOT why we got Donald Trump. You people have no idea, do you.


Thanks, Stranger.


"In 2016, too many people felt like the government wasn't meaningfully addressing their problems,....That got us Donald Trump."

No, that most certainly was NOT why we got Donald Trump. You people on the SECB have no idea, do you.


I notice you do not claim Sanders is the candidate with the most workable plans or that he has shown an ability to accomplish things while in Congress, and you barely waved at the fact that this would mean nominating yet another (very) old white man. Your entire argument mostly boils down to ”we should vote for him because we have no choice.” But it turns out we do actually have a choice. Bernie is currently drawing the most votes from a few key constituencies and he has a pack of diehards who might flip the election if he’s not on the ballot. Fine. But threats and voting pluralities should not be your benchmarks here, nor should you try to justify it with shaky theories about electability and boozy pie cherries. Who’s the candidate with the best ideas, the most relevant experience, and the best track record of success? You know, actual measurable things?

You and everyone else knows the answer is Warren. Just admit it and stop contributing to the noise.


@40, @42
Do enlighten us, please.


not a dem but this is both cool and dandy for the strangers. sanders can avoid looking like a dummo putz so he can win the general.



Do you really believe that any of these perfect plans are going to come through congress in their current form? It really doesn't matter how well you can build a world on paper. It matters much more what you can do on the ground, and it's undeniable that Bernie has a much better ground game.

Moreover, have you bothered to actually examine all of Warren's great plans? They literally just amount to this: here's the problem, here are the existing agencies that are supposed to address the problem, here is how I'll increase funds for those existing agencies and make some minor reshuffling of their bureaucracies. They aren't great plans, they don't offer much to alter the status quo, and they START from a position of compromise.

Bernie got 50% of the vote in Nevada and he won in every single income, regional and demographic category except old white people in which category he came in second.

Warren wins with affluent urban whites over 40, that's it.


Actually she doesn't even win with affluent white urban libs over 40, she comes in second behind Pete. She has come in 3rd and 4th place in every contest so far, single digit support, no delegates in NV or NH. I honestly don't see how anyone can still claim she's the best on offer.


“It happened last time around, when 12 percent (W! T! F!) of Sanders supporters in the primary ended up voting for Trump in the general election. These Chapo Trap House–listening idiots might be holding the race hostage.”

Damn, could you imagine if a much larger percentage of Hillary supporters voted for Romney in 2008? Boy that would sure make this argument look silly if it was a thing that absolutely happened, huh?


And of course by Romney, I mean McCain. Why is there no edit!


And of course by “Romney”, I mean McCain. This site needs an edit button.


Also Concerned Black Voter,

These were two different groups of people. Bernie "bros" who were Bernie or Bust were a very small minority of people in 2016, but they were not the ones who voted Trump. They were the ones who stayed home or voted Stein or voted everything except POTUS or wrote in Bernie.

The Bernie-Trump voters were Independents, swing voters and/or Republicans who would vote for Bernie but not for Hillary.

These are two different groups of people.

Also 12% of Bernie voters in the primary sounds like a lot when you phrase it that way, but it's actually just over 1% of the actual general election votes.

This is entirely a media constructed narrative and I really wish people would shut up about it. It's disingenuous, blames Bernie voters and makes the Democrats sound entitled.


Bong Joon-Ho would never have voted for this endorsement, and you know it.


Bernie will get the nomination, Trump will win the election. Trump will then either work with Mitch to figure out a way to a third term--national emergency, amendment, whatever--or, Trump will have one of his kids run--probably Don. Jr, and continue to "run" things.


Farther left? A great strategy for a Trump victory. Sanders/Clinton would insure a Trump win.


With over 329 million people in the United States this is the best candidate for President the Democrats can come up with?


@43 schmacky: Thank you, bless you, and can I buy you a beer?
@53 & 54: Choke on it, MAGAs.
@55: Thus my vote for Senator Elizabeth Warren.


Speaking of Endorsements:

"Seth Meyers Ridicules Cable News for ‘Unhinged’ Sanders Coverage"

Here's a comment on it:

"As an example of how much the TV pundits do not like Sanders - last evening on the PBS news hour, both Amy Walter and Tamara Keith were also playing the "anyone but Sanders game." Without ever mentioning that he is the front runner and what people Do like about him they said "there are lots of things that voters do not like about Sanders."

They're all playing the game - I expect FOX to do that but - NPR and PBS are doing the same and they're considered the good guys by most liberal minded people.

Sorry, they suck too and people need to understand the game for what it is. The Democrats SUCK big-time. With them it's - We do not want any real progressive candidates or progressive ideas and we'll do everything to stop them. Even let tRUMP have another term.

That's why I am an Independent and hate the Democrats." --John R. • a day ago • edited


Re Warren, she won't because she's boxed herself into a parsimonious affect. She relentless and falsely claims sameness to ordinary people, even oppressed racial identity, with an unmatched over the top sincerity. But she's full stop a Harvard law professor and corporate policy wonk.

Voters are no longer receptive to her sort of "one-of-you-ism." Look at Trump - he did zero identity pandering in 2016 if you don't include changing to a camo MAGA hat in just a few of the deepest of deep red redneck rallies. Look at Bernie - he owns exactly who he is and people respect him for it. Warren's got great ideas and good experience, and college educated white women tend to swoon a bit at the romance of her narratives, but mostly everyone else reads her as a phony, and therefor (and mistakenly) full of shit.

She's eminently easy to tune out because of this, and she can't seem to land on an authentic persona that fixes the problem. Which again is too bad because the core message is strong. By contrast, love or hate Bernie, everyone hears every word he's saying. He's going to be able to communicate in ways that will mobilize his base and give fence sitters reasons to come to his camp, I like Warren's politics quite a lot, but she's the dem candidate I actually see as having the biggest problem with electability, not Bernie.


Re Warren, she won't win because

@57 yep on the money - I'm pretty much an Obama moderate type, but the mainstream media needs to let Bernie shine as it turns out he's the brightest star.


@58 & @59: Maggot Turd: You're just too chickenshit to ever elect a woman President of the United States. Cop to it, Bernie Bro.


I'd try and argue with some of these Bernie-hating commenters, but the arguments are laid out in the article itself and y'all are clearly immune to reasoning. The polls are crystal clear that Bernie has the best chance to beat Trump. Our mission as Dems is clear. You people are more dogmatic than the "Bernie bros" you're crying about.

Also, the Bong shoutout is great/weird


@61: I don't hate Bernie Sanders. I just feel that Senator Elizabeth Warren is the strongest, best qualified candidate for the 2020 Democratic nomination that we've got. Warren gets my vote.


A reminder to those who keep insisting that Bernie can't win: He has beaten Trump in 47 out of the last 50 head-to-head polls. If polls showing Biden beating Trump count-an there have been fewer and fewer of them recently, as his support within the party, especially among black voters, continues to ebb-polls showing Bernie beating Trump should be considered equally valid.


Love the radiating rays of sunshiny hope around Bernie's head. I keep saying politics is a secular religion, complete with the yearning for a savior who, once installed on their earthly throne, will bring about an amazing historical moment when the lion lays down with the lamb.

Images like the one featured here help me make my case.


@63: Stop with the highly inappropriate, irrelevant, and vulgar implications to what I once said long ago in a completely different comment thread, already. It doesn't support your argument against anything I've posted, and i'm not amused. I am sticking with Senator Warren, no matter what the polls show of Sanders or what's parked in a vacant lot---yours or anyone else's.

@64 AlaskanbutnotSeanParnell: I'm not saying Bernie Sanders CAN'T win. But I have issue with the "Feel the Bern" Bandwagon (you don't remember what happened in 2016?). Sanders is 78; Warren is 70 with quite possibly more time on her side to go. Senator Elizabeth Warren is by far the strongest Democratic candidate for the 2020 general election and if the Democrats are wise, she should get the DNC nomination. Her last rapid fire delivery in the Democrat debates is proof of what she can do in the White House.


Mizz Liz - Mr Savage's running line has been that he intends to write a large cheque to the campaign of the eventual nominee - "whoever she may be." As Blue No Matter Who is more important to him even than gender, he throws in that it MIGHT be a he, but he clearly WANTS a woman - any woman (I suspect he hasn't learned from last time and wants the maximum quantity of Republican tears), even Ms Gabbard.

Like you, I had a much more favourable impression of Sen Warren some months ago. Luckily I live in a safe state, and can cast my write-in if need be with impunity.


Ah yes. I forgot Tulsi even existed luckily. Right now, her fascist buddies in Delhi are literally burning down mosques and pulling people out of their homes to beat them in the streets. She's on my hell no list and has been for a long time, and if Bernie or any other candidate made her their VP, they'd lose my vote and I'd do everything I could to stop them winning, short of actually supporting the REps. Luckily I don't think anyone is that stupid and I'm pretty sure that Dan was referring to Warren then, not Tulsi.


Speaking of the Horrors of SOCIALISM:

"'Bernie Sanders has made it safe to be a socialist in American politics. That could very well be his most important long-term achievement.

He has offered a way of thinking about politics that we haven’t considered in 50 to 60 years. And he’s done so in sync with what people feel at a gut level.

The Occupy Movement brought the issue of income inequality to the forefront, and it has stayed there. Sanders has given the issue a public face.'

--Ellen Schrecker, professor emerita of history at Yeshiva University in New York City. Considered by many the nation’s foremost authority on McCarthyism..."

Public-opinion research appears to bear out her observations.

A Pew poll from June 2015 found that 69% of voters under 30 were willing to vote for a socialist presidential candidate, while a Gallup poll released in November 2019 revealed that attitudes toward capitalism have declined dramatically among 18-to-39-year-olds.

Socialism is now almost as popular as capitalism among that demographic."

Meanwhile, Unbridled Capitalism is dying to devour itself.


@30 - Except if you actually looked at the polls, it was more like a 1 in 6 chance that Trump could win (feel like a game of Russian roulette? why not?) in the final month. And in recent weeks, Trump’s popularity has gone up in the polls precisely in time with Sanders getting more popular among Democrats.


Blackcap, this is not true. Overall, when you look at all the polls, Trump generally loses, especially to Bernie and by greater margins. The margin between Trump and ALL the Dems narrowed and he won more of the polls a few weeks back, though it has started narrowing again.

This isn't because of Bernie. It was the totally predictable and avoidable fall out over the unpopular impeachment causing his base to rally behind them and which made Biden (then considered the Dem frontrunner) look as corrupt as any Rep to any normal person.

It's too soon to tell, but I'd say the margin is widening again (in the Dems' favor) because the news cycle is now focused on the primary.



Also I don't think polls are particularly accurate any way and I think Trump will be very hard to beat, but Bernie has a better chance than anyone else currently given his more diverse base of support and the youth vote and his appeal with Inds & latinos.


@71 started "widening" again, excuse me no edit button


Let's see Trump/Putin or Bernie/Castro.. Hell of a choice. Having grown up in the fly over states Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana before escaping to PNW, gotta say they will vote Trump/Putin over a socialist. Yeh I get the irony.. To getting anything done on climate change, housing, universal health care, we gotta not just get the Presidency, but Ditch Mich/take Senate, and hold serve on the House.

Three commandments for Democrats to say 3 times a day and before they go to sleep.
1. To win Presidency, need to when Electoral college
2. To win Senate, we need to win keep all blue states, win purple states, and snatch a red state.
3. For 2020 to be a success, must accomplish 1 & 2.

Fun fact: 75% of American electorate is center right, center left, or independent. Electoral college means winning some state like Iowa, Michigan, Penn, Ohio.. all in play. Much harder to do win you slap Socialist brand on the ticket. Most Americans are fiercley independent and don't want to live in a what they perceive as a nanny state.

My prediction is that a much need consolidation of the "moderate only by Bernie standards" combined with a crisper message would yield more real Democratic votes than Bernie will be able to muster. He caps out at 30-35% meaning 65% of Democrats are voting for something different.

Reality is the whole pie analogy is more like the whole f&*ng Costco Bakery. His platform It so obviously unrealistic and unvetted, that sensible people will just think Dem's can't lead shit. Its the liberal version of Trump platform. Throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. Unfortunately, Democrats don't get the same luxury of bombast, that Republicans do. I didn't make the rules, its just how it works. Every single candidate wants to arrive at universal healthcare, solve climate change blah blah blah. What is really at stake is getting the opportunity to lead the discussion.

Unlike some hardcore Bernies.. I will vote for who ever Dems throw. Even if it is Mr Yuk (Bloomberg). The few Bernies who will only vote for a Dem candidate name Bernie will be compensated by much more reliable independents, never Trumper repubs. The disdain for Trump is so strong that we need too build a deep purple coalition, not simply default to a platform that we all no is wildly unattainable give the overall electorate.

Feeling the Bern could end up being a very painful Rash...


Look, Bernie is not my first choice, but I'm okay with him being the nominee. He has something most of the others don't (and none to his degree) - real credibility, consistency, and a reputation for total integrity. He also taps into the hunger for change better than any candidate.

I far preferred Warren, despite her own flaws, but am tired of people parroting the dismissive "Bernie bro" narrative that has been marketed to them, as though anyone who supports Sanders is a vitriolic meathead who doesn't know any better (plus white & male, of course). That's such a crock - he has a platform many agree with and is the leader of a populist movement, so he has galvanized a hardcore following - the other candidates only wish they had that base and had won the popular vote for all 3 primaries/caucuses so far.  Sorry, you don't become the only Dem candidate in history to win all three with just brainless bros.  Something else is going on.  Are there some idiots? Sure, but to extrapolate that to the whole movement is dumb.

Many of the current attacks only strengthen Bernie because they reinforce his reputation as an anti-establishment outsider confronting a Democratic party that has abandoned the working class in several ways. Bernie has flaws for sure, but so much of what people say stems from bias.  Look at the Mayor Pete who years ago admiringly gushed about Sanders in his essay - praising his steadfast commitment to his principles, courage, and drive for transformational change.  The Pete from 10 months ago was basically saying the same thing, but now it's been re-cast as actually dogma, inflexibility, and orthodoxy.  

I'd counter-argue:

1.  Liberals complain that Obama was too weak with the GOP in his first few years.  Even though he had Congress on his side, Obama gave away the store and caved from his negotiating position on health care in a vain attempt to curry favor with Republicans.  Now you have someone who has moved the Overton window on the conversation and will fight harder, but, nooo, that's just too much!  So Inflexible!

2.  Orthodoxy, if handled poorly, may be toxic and alienating. But it may also work because that's how ideas spread and become culturally indoctrinated and embraced for decades.  Orthodoxy sure worked for the Republican side - everything from the government being inept and only markets driving solutions in all areas of society to cutting taxes for the rich. They made that stuff up! It's about time Dems did what the other side does and stood up for what the believe in with no apologies. GOP candidates are ballsy and it works - voters love an unapologetic warrior with a clear vision. We lose so damn much because we waffle and bend and try to sell lukewarm tea in a bid to be all things to all people. We're timid. And maybe the remedy is to finally have a firebrand say - this is the vision, follow me.  This is how movements have been made throughout history- via ideology - and from there, you get reform, policy, law.

3.  Again, Sanders was not my first choice, but it's undeniable that there are so many disingenuous attacks on him.  Pete, for instance, claims his M4A plan will be "taking away choice".  But he knows full well - and has said as much - that what we have now is the illusion of choice:  if you lose your job, you don't have healthcare choice; same if you're a contractor or gig worker or want to start your own business. Likewise, your employer doesn't let you choose what insurance company they go with, nor are we able to choose our deductibles, copays, and so on. Nor can anyone choose to go bankrupt, even with insurance. Also, where's the choice when you want to go out of network? Or when you join and only two doctors inside your area's network are even accepting new patients? And so on. Only the very rich have true choice.  

So if you're going to say you don't want Bernie, hey, that's totally fair.  But don't give me these nonsense arguments about the "bros" and choice and so on.


@75 Since Putin is still alive and kicking and Castro is dead, it shouldn't be such a hard choice.

Also regarding Castro, all Bernie did was praise their health care and education which were both better than (health care) and comparable to (education) our own programs. As if our government doesn't also use education as propaganda or run an authoritarian prison system?

Castro did tons of shitty things, including in the early parts of his regime locking up gay people and dissidents, cracking down on journalism for his entire career, and restricting travel of its citizens, locking them on the island.

But I don't understand the disproportionate attention this is getting when our current government- from both parties- courts, funds, sells weapons to, supports wars of the Saudi regime which is hundreds of times more brutal than anything Castro dreamt of doing and which likewise even created and exported the very terrorism that we claim to be forever at war fighting. Yet they have lobby groups in our government influencing legislation, invest in our industry, help write our policy, give tens of millions to leading politicians' foundations, etc.

But no, let's focus on the fact that Bernie praised the Cuban literacy program decades ago for some bizarre reason.

Seriously if you were an alien to this planet you would wonder why the US is so goddamn obsessed with Cuba. It's like a neurosis at this point.

Anyway, Obama said all the same things and then even took the steps towards normalizing relations with them. They are transitioning to capitalism now and will be another failed state in the US sphere of influence soon enough and - news flash- the Soviet Union has been gone since before internet comment sections even existed- so there isn't any sane reason to all scared away about Bernie's praise of Castro teaching poor people to read.


That's just it. Democrats don't fight. They always try to be the Neville Chamberlain, the Dudley Doright, the hapless Mr. Peeples. Democratic Party's idea of fighting is -- well, we saw it with the impeachment hearings. They completely bungled it from start to finish? Why? Because they're MO was "we'll show how full of shit the Republicans are." News flash, everyone already knows this, and the people who don't care about it weren't swayed one iota. Democrats could have solved the subpoena problem with a simple flick of the wrist -- it's called Congressional jail. But they didn't. No, that would be too much. Being Effective And Getting Results is Just Too Much. And that's simply not what the Democratic Party is about.


Right on, guys. Bernie is a smart choice for these reasons. I already voted for Warren, as imo the best person for the job, but I assume her delegates would go to Bernie if she loses.


Mizz Liz - At the time it started, Ms Gabbard had a lot of hype (more than Ms Klobuchar) and a good deal of support from a particular branch of the left (but only that one branch, and strong opposition from other branches). I thought at the time that Mr S might have been equally happy to back Ms Warren or Ms Harris, but that mostly he just wanted a woman more than anything, and any woman would do.


EmmaLiz... It was a joke with some truth. Bernie is a self described democratic socialist, and how that will play everywhere that isn't left leaning is Socialist/Communist. I can see the ads already. Truth is Bernie is by definition a socialist (believes in government control over individual control).. which isn't bad, BUT, not what 75% of Americans would label themselves, particularly in purple and red states. Sadly, we don't live in a time that nuance counts. No room for gray.
Bernie is NOT the first or only person who has championed Universal health care, income inequality ect.. The really big issue for 2020 is what strategy will work to get Heir Trump and Mitch packing, hold the House and get the Senate.

We not so moderate "Moderates" simply don't believe throwing Bernies free everything/tax the rich agenda, smothered in a Democratic Socialist sauce will get it done in conservative blue, purple, and vulnerable red states. I actually talk to people I dont agree with, and many want an exit ramp from the Trump lunacy. We love the passion and the energy of Bernie and most of the sane supporters, but I don't think they alone will be enough.

Everyone has a right to vote as they wish. I try to divorce myself from following the crowd, and look at the real landscape.


"These Chapo Trap House–listening idiots might be holding the race hostage—but the stakes are so high that we're willing to pay the ransom if that's what it takes to save the country from four more years of Trump." I read Dan all over this statement. With his previous rabidly anti-Sanders status, I'm really surprised. He must have been hugely outvoted. A lot of DNC folks are Vote Blue No Matter Who until it's Bernie, so I hope they'll actually follow through before the DNC does exactly the same thing and expect different results.


Adios Hillary; Hello Bernie:

"Neoliberalism Has Radicalized a Whole Generation

Neoliberal ideas, political scientist Lester Spence writes, 'radically change what it means to be human, as the perfect human being now becomes an entrepreneur of his own human capital, responsible for his personal development.'

Young people entering the workforce today are expected to cheerfully embrace their own alienation and the commodification of their whole existence."

Fucking BINGO.

"Under neoliberalism, citizens become producers/consumers who are 'free' to participate in the market economy but not necessarily free to engage in political protest or to form unions.

Neoliberalism is the opposite of solidarity. It encourages an extreme form of selfish individualism that ends up depoliticizing the populace and eroding the collective spirit of democracy. It also leaves the individual isolated and alone."



I'm not sure what state you are in but purple and red states- at least in my experience in Texas, the SW and Appalachia (don't know about northern and florida or deep south) do not work the way liberals think they do.

Most people in those states are Independent. Most with a party affiliation are Republican and they're not going to vote for a Dem no matter what you do. But among those who identify as liberal or who vote Dem, they are much more left than the same in blue states in my experience. It's just that they are not "more liberal" which is different.

What I mean is, if you come at them with an agenda that focuses on using the correct pronouns or abortion rights (if you CENTER these thigns) or if you come at them with the elitism that urban liberal areas are culturally superior while the rest of us are rubes, then they will sit it out or reluctantly vote, you'll win no one over.

But if you come at them with an agenda that is based on immigration and trade and ending war and that sort of thing (people in those places were gutted by NAFTA) then they are likely to turn out for you.

So actually, Bernie has a much better chance of winning states like Texas and Kentucky than does someone like Warren.

You've seen this play out in the first few contests already where Bernie won the popular vote just barely in NH and Iowa but won it by a landslide in Nevada.

He has diverse multicultural support in Texas and will likely win that state. I don't know if he'd beat Trump there in the general- I doubt it. I don't think any Dem could win Texas for at least another 5 years. But he would come closer than any "moderate" that liberals think might appeal to swing and independents.

What liberals and people who run cable news shows think of as moderate is not what turns people out. It's very common in Texas for independents to like Bernie and AOC but think Warren or Pete are too liberal. We have to rethink how people envision the political spectrum. We've spent so long thinking that liberal means campus politics or anti religious fundamentalism or whatever- and unfortunately people just really don't care much about that in the same way that they care about their jobs or their health care.

The other thing that blue state liberals tend to misunderstand is just how sick working class people are of the endless wars. These are the people who end up fighting in them. Again, most people who go through the military identify as Independent or Republican, but those that do not are far more likely to have left wing politics, not liberal. So for example, if you look at campaign donations to the Dem field from enlisted troops, Bernie gets far more than any other Dem candidate.

Finally, consider immigration- again something that seems mostly not central to urban liberal politics which is a huge part of the reason Pete does well in white states. For those of us in border states or in states that have huge Latino populations, it's often a number one or number two concern- it's often our family members, our neighbors, our studnets. So when Bernie comes out saying he's going to go back to a pre-patriot act immigration policy (eliminating ICE) then he wins over a lot of people who have friends/family members who are living in terror. Again, see Nevada. Warren just wants to make ICE nicer- she lost a shit ton of support with that bullshit.

In short, what I'm trying to say is that I don't konw if Bernie can beat Trump, but I'm positive he has a better chance than anyone else because his coaltiion is broader. What liberals in urban blue states and talking heads on cable news thinks appeals to people (moderate political speech with liberal talking points) is not what turns out independents or purple state voters- this is dead wrong.

And most importantly, moderate liberals who focus on urban areas in blue states cannot win the election by themselves. See Hillary. They must form a coalition. The question is if you want to form that coalition with moderate Republicans or with the rest of us- alienated by the process, independents, the working class, immigrants, etc. If you look at it from a strictly strategic point of view (let alone the ethics of the Dem party moving right at a time when the Reps are becoming fascist), then you've already tried the Panera strategy of getting moderate Republicans to turn out for you- they do not do it. This is a losing strategy. Republicans vote Republican. Period.


Also nearly no one under 40 gives a fuck if Bernie calls himself a socialist or not. Gen Xers seem split on it, but it isn't a primary concern. Anyone who is of an immigrant background doesn't give a shit either. It's only Boomers that care, and yes this concerns me as they are a huge voter block. The question is if most will vote Bernie over Trump. I think those that usually vote Dem mostly will and we'll lose a lot of the swing Boomers. Hopefully 08-level youth vote turn out will be enough to compensate. I read a study recently that said that Bernie would need 10% more in the under 30 vote than Kerry got in order to compensate for the projected Boomer swing loss. This has too many moving parts to predict, but that seems an achievable goal to me, fwiw.


And honestly, what might be best for the left long term is for the Dem party to destroy itself by refusing Bernie the nomination, running one of their centrists and then losing again.

But this would be horrible for the planet and for millions of people. Anyway like I said, there are too many moving parts to think this many steps ahead. The smartest strategy right now is to consider what you care about and consider who is most likely to deliver it with some caveat about practicality. We are not likely to agree on that individually, which is the whole point of a primary anyway. All this handwringing over what imaginary voters in swing states might thing is nonsense. All you know is what the people around you say, what the elections show and what the polls predict. In my experience with those three things, Bernie is doing better than every other Democratic candidate and it still might not be enough for him to win a majority. I'm not convinced he's going to do well on Sat for example. But it's Biden and maybe Steyer who will do better and neither of them are more electable or preferable long term, so there's still no alternative to Bernie in my mind.

Warren, Pete, Klobuchar- they are finished. And I'm really sorry that so many liberals can't see it yet. You've got to turn off the cable news. The media is run by urban educated professional (mostly white) liberals like themselves so if they see their opinions reflected back at them, then it probably seems like these are widespread moderate majority feelings/values/preferences. This could not be more incorrect.

What I imagine is that the media is going to spend the next several weeks making a big deal out of things like Bernie praising Cuba's literacy program or visiting the Soviet Union in the 80s and they will make him seem more radical than he is. Since no one else has any enthusiastic support, there will be more majority and we are in for a loss. Shame.

If there are academics in the future (if our civilization survives in such a way) then there's going to be loads of studies on the effects of 24 hr cable news, starting with the first gulf war, through the WMD hysteria, right up to Trump. It's so frustrating how much people have let their minds be poisoned.


Vote Blue No Matter Who.


I get your analysis, the media and pundits are there only for entertainment. My observations are all from talking to or being talked at by real Trump voters. I grew up in industrial Ohio, saw the ravages of steel, auto, and rubber industry, and spent summers in Indiana and Kentucky. I'm acutely sympathetic/empathetic to their plight. I've worked in corporate America, understand the corporate/wallstreet gamesmanship extremely well. I have also worked alongside mexican immigrants, tradespeople, farmers, and resource sector. That's why in 2016 I went with a photo journalist friend to a Trump rally in Lynden Washington to see first hand and talk to folks about what the appeal is. I believe I was one of two black dudes there. Amazingly didn't feel threatened, I just asked questions and let them talk.. To be blunt, the conversations were incredibly revealing/garbled/gibberish. I've had serious long conversations with a high school classmate that was a speech writer for Reagan, is an anti-immigration "expert" (violently disagree with him) who works out of the Capital. As painful and mind numbing as these conversations, I work hard to try to make sense of it, because I know that for everyone that people think is a "deplorable", there are two simply so frustrated and disgusted with the way things are going (political inaction, housing insecurity, health care, climate, rapid change in culture, technology). I've been caught on planes flying from Mexico, with older couple from the midwest who are ex-democrats that proceeded to tell me how awful Obama was (worst President, bla bla bla) and how great Trump was going to be. All this is simply saying that my views are based on real life conversations and observations and extensive reading and thought. There is a definite wave of intolerance and tribalism in the air, and you could see this in Brexit, what is happening in India, Brazil, etc..

I agree it is anyone's guess how people will actually vote, because it all is based on hearsay, internal biases, and personal motives, gut feeling. I also agree that the "moderates options" are not resonating because they really don't have a compelling vision for the future. I held my nose and voted for Clinton actually fairly disgusted how she handled the 2016 campaign. I actually like Bernie, and know CURRENTLY, has the momentum, and best ground game by a long shot. Biden is running on his past (some good some bad), Bloomberg (is buying his way, big yuk), Elisabeth Warren (is a floppy version/less authentic Version of Bernie). I understand the argument about Bernie being the best shot of the lot, I'm just struggling to see how a platform that is so broad, and a candidate who doesn't have alot of political wins under his belts, in basketball parlance hits the three pointer at the buzzer. I believe for us all to win (Bernie as the nominee or who ever, we will need to temper some (not all) of the idealism with pragmatism not as elitism. I will Vote Blue No Matter Who, and Always Do.


I love Bernie Sanders to death, always have, and if he's the nominee I'll work my heart out to get him elected (and everyone else opposed to Trump had damn well better do the same, no matter whom they're voting for in the primary).

But {big sigh} I hope he isn't. I'm sorry but he's just too polarizing, too uncompromising, too easy for Republicans to demonize and scare the hell out of older voters still under the sway of their Cold War upbringing. I suspect the Stranger editors are too young to fully grasp how thoroughly my generation was indoctrinated. And besides, after 45 men it's time for someone differently gendered. I'm going with Warren unless she drops out before the 10th, then it's Klobuchar. If they're both gone and I have to vote for a man it will probably be Buttigieg. But I hope it won't come to that.


@90 MarciaX: Right on, sister!


I know some of you hate us (Washington state, I mean), but here in California we've seen this show before. The GOP all in on hating Mexicans? Check. Right-wing populism? Check. A center-left careerist losing to a tacky celeb? Check. Democrats thinking progressive populism is the antidote to the latter? Check.

(See Prop 187, the recall, the 2006 election.)

Guess how all that ended? Spoiler alert! The GOP holds no statewide offices here, neither Senate seat, an ever diminishing number of House seats, and Dems have variously had super-majorities in both chambers of the legislature for at least the last half-decade (I've stopped paying attention - politics in this state is mercifully boring).

The antidote to right-wing populism is not a class-based politics (which papers over racism, sexism, and homophobia on the left - literally the only thing I look forward to about Trump 2.0 is that we get to kick the rhetorical crap out of Bernie bros), but credible and competent center-left candidates for statewide and national office, and a commitment to diversity. Sanders will lose not (or at least not just) because he is too far left, but because according to his own theory of electability he targets white, working class voters rather than moderate independents in the burbs. Democrats have been bleeding the former for five decades, and slowly gaining the latter for the last two to three. This is how Dems got a super-majority in California, and how they will do it nationally.

This will be an election season with a lot of noise (even if it goes to the convention will the superdelegates deny Sanders the nom, risking a repeat of 2016 [I don't think so]). Many of us non-Sanders primary voters (and sure I'll vote for him in November, but he's going to lose) will be tuning out (the new silent majority, and everything).


@91 Thanks, and anyone reading please understand this is not a knock on Sanders himself or his politics. I agree with virtually his entire platform and I don't even really fault the Stranger for endorsing him, as he seems to have just about consolidated the progressive activist voter bloc. (I've even been willing to cut him slack on the gun issue over the years because I know it's an especially complicated one in Vermont.) He doesn't need my vote in the WA primary and I don't plan to give it to him, but he would probably be better than Obama as president even if Congress and the courts block most of what he wants to do. He is at least plausibly electable and I'll work hard to help make that happen if he's nominated, but expect it to be a very heavy lift. With him we're going all-in on transformational change and I think it's still a little too early for that, mainly because I don't trust my own age cohort. If the all-important task right now is to get Donald Trump out of office, and I think it is, Warren, Klobuchar, Buttiegieg and yes even Biden would be a safer (and wiser) bet.


@93 Marcia X: Yep. Warren for me for so many reasons you said. Well summarized.


@13: Bernie Sanders is no Fellow Red, but him being in the White House would stymie many cryptofascistic projects dreamt up by the Fourth Reich. --- & & & &


@1: Misandry lately?


Bernie Sanders wants to give USA citizens what Whites in Europe and the Antipodes have had for decades if not generations: how the KKKorporate ass media miSStreats him indicates that AmeriKKKa's political class CONtinues to be Far-Rightist ! --- & &


@96: Misogyny lately? Or are you just too chickenshit and chauvinistic to ever elect a well qualified woman for President of the United States?


People need to check out the backgrounds of people who want to have power over us i.e. politicians. I think identity politics can be a dead end. Because someone is a woman does not necessarily mean she has my interest at heart for example.

Klobuchar, for example, has a deeply thwarted racist history. She was a district attorney before she became a senator and was instrumental in incarcerating numerous poor black people many of which were innocent of the charges against them. This is a deeply racist and classist legal system and she was very much a part of that, In one case where she charged a 16 year old black minor with first degree murder there was no gun, no fingerprints and no DNA. The only evidence was provided by paid informants. This young man has been incarcerated for years and Amy Klobuchar charged him twice with murder one.
His alibi was not checked out by the police who interrogated him for hours. He has always claimed his innocence. If folks check out Klobuchar’s history as a district attorney these cases can be found. Just because someone is found guilty by a court does not mean that they were actually guilty especially if the evidence is paid informants which is common in a deeply racist and classist legal arena. This is all recorded in the NY Times and other media. That Klobuchar was allowed to skate to more privilege and power is a disgraceful legacy provided by the democratic party.

Bernie is probably a good choice because he has nothing to hide and he wants to address the concerns of ordinary people. I rarely vote because of the stink and rot of this system but I voted for Bernie.

People can protest the system and make a stand - make it uncomfortable for those that oppress us. Do what you can when you can..


If you are wondering if the innocence project can help there is only so much they can do. They cannot keep up to all the cases they get. It is overwhelming. We need profound change to deal with it.


You might as well endorse Donald Trump for re-election. Sanders policies won’t sit well with many middle of the


Accidentally submitted early.

Anyway, many of Sanders policies won’t sit well with middle of the road voters, myself included. I think there are a lot more people in the middle that will sit out if Bernie gets the nomination versus those on the left if Biden gets the nomination. Time will tell.


Do you guys actually believe what you write? Good luck getting BS elected...


We already have socialism for the very wealthy. We are paying for it. Three people have half the wealth in this country and the rest of us are dealing with the left overs.

Many are tired of being the cannon fodder for corrupt politicians and the elite. Many are tired of living from paycheck to paycheck with little hope for the future. Austerity via neoliberalism must come to an end. The prisons are packed with poor people because of a deeply racist and classist legal system which is designed for the wealthy.

The grassroots movements of ordinary people that are emerging now mean that they are standing up to the greed and corruption of this society and the destruction of people and the environment. Change is on its way as these masses of people unite. People are not willing to settle for the status quo. Bernie is expressing that now.


BOLD high risk behavior.
Making such a big choice so early, before you needed to and without some critical information that might change your mind. I do a bit of the same thing, in this case voting the day I got my ballot, only to find a while later my choice has suspended her campaign, and endorsed the guy who is going to win.
One way to get attention is to do something so stupid and so public.
I though you (SECB) wanted influence more than advertising dollars.
Obviously, we were both wrong.